SUPREME COURT ASKING CALCUTTA HC TO SET UP APPELLATE TRIBUNALS FOR DISPUTED VOTERS IS WELCOME

It is not a tough proposition to decipher the reasons for Supreme Court asking Calcutta High Court Chief
Justice Sujoy Paul on March 10 to form special appellate tribunals with former high court judges to examine the appeals filed by those excluded from Bengal’s voter list during the SIR, each to be headed by a former chief justice of Calcutta High Court. The apex court might not have come out with nature of order if it had not been in receipt of the information that the judicial officers appointed in compliance to its February 24 order were facing significant technical and logistical issues.

The Court issued a stern warning against attempts to undermine the integrity of judicial officers handling the massive, rapid voter list revisions, treating such moves as an affront to the judiciary. The Supreme Court directed that the ECI must bear all costs associated with these tribunals, including honorariums for the judicial officers involved. This decision of the apex court comes amid allegations that the special intensive revision (SIR) exercise in West Bengal was flawed and potentially used to disenfranchise the Muslims, and declare them as foreign nationals.

The seriousness of the situation could be made out from CJI Surya Kant observation: “We are doubting the bona fides of both sides.” The Supreme Court was also conscious of absence of an independent appellate mechanism. It has cautioned that the ECI about its authority with the remark that that it does not enjoy unchecked authority while conducting Special Intensive Revisions (SIR) of electoral rolls, observing that any
such exercise must remain anchored in constitutional principles and natural justice.

Irrefutably the reluctance of the Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar to ensure that people are not denied of their right to vote primarily forced the apex court issue this order. This simply manifests frustration of the apex court to reluctance of Gyanesh to abide by its order of February 24, wherein it had directed the Commission to render all help to the judicial officers deputed to screen the voters’ list and remove the discrepancies. Notwithstanding a clear directive from CJI Surya Kant, the chief electoral officer of Bengal, obviously at the directive of CEC, issued a circular, in utter violation of apex court order, saying all appeals should be marked to him and that he would decide them.

Undeniably this circular from CEO, Bengal underscores that power has gone into the head of Gyanesh and he nurses the view that he enjoys unbridled power to overrule supreme court and was the supreme authority to dictate the course and nature of the Bengal assembly election . Had it not been the case the CEO, Bengal, would not have dared to issue the circular overruling the order of the apex court.

The creation of this body serves as a mechanism to address complaints of “dirty games” or partisan behaviour within the electoral machinery, providing a legal recourse beyond the internal review by Election Commission, which has consistently defended its processes of putting these voters under the category of logical discrepancy, asserting that its actions are guided by law and aimed at ensuring an accurate, transparent, and non-partisan electoral roll.

While the Supreme Court has been continuously upholding the sanctity of the electoral process amid high-stakes political disputes in West Bengal and directing the Election Commission to conduct fair and transparent election, CEC Gyanesh Kumar particularly has been striving and using his office to circumvent the process. He was in Calcutta on March 9, and 10 to put his house in order and guide the officials to conduct the election. But his two day stay was marred by his pulling up the officials and threatening them to toe his line for get ready to face music.

But to the chagrin of CEC, within 24 hours of his threatening the state officials, on March 10, the Supreme Court threw spanner into his design to deny the Muslims and other vulnerable sections their right to vote, by ordering creation of an independent appellate mechanism to remedy potential “dubious” exclusions.

Surprisingly the Draft voters list published on December 16, under SIR exercise, did not carry the original 58 lakhs names as they were deleted as absent, shifted, dead and duplicate voters, even without having fresh enumeration. A total of 7 crore 66 lakhs 37 thousand 529 voters in West Bengal were covered under the first phase of SIR. Among these 7 crore 8 lakhs 16 thousand 616 voters, around 92.4 percent Enumeration Forms were digitised.

But what has come as the biggest shock to the voters, has been putting 60 lakh names under adjudication, technically described as logical discrepancy, a move that has plunged the state into a climate of intense anxiety, confusion and chaos. This unprecedented administrative status, affecting a staggering 60,06,675 electors, leaves nearly 8.5% of the state’s voting population in legal limbo just as the electoral machinery kicks into high gear. What is most significant is 70 per cent of these voters belong to the Muslim and the rest to the Dalit and underprivileged. These electors remain on the final roll published on February 28, but their ability to cast a ballot remains suspended pending judicial clearance, a hurdle that has turned the routine update of the voter list into a statewide crisis.

The main reasons for keeping these names under adjudication relates to spelling mistakes in the names of
the fathers or the guardians; in the case of women change in their surnames after marriages. The Commission adopted most ridiculous mechanism to deny them right to vote. The automated computer programming used to prepare the list has been primarily responsible for the errors. But instead of  correcting the computer related mistakes, EC issued Tuglaqi order to voters to prove their genuineness.

This March 10order of the Supreme Court has also aborted CEC’s move not to include these names by the date polling takes place. The apex court has left it to Justice Paul’s discretion when to publish the supplementary lists after the verification of these 60 lakh, being done by judicial officers (district-level judges) appointed by the high court chief justice. The design logical discrepancy was evolved only to delete the names that could not be deleted in the first round of SIR. The whole point was large-scale deletion of Muslim and dalit voters who are potential vote bank of TMC. The adjudication was the key weapon of keeping many of them out of the final voter’s list.

The prolonged special intensive revision process has led to fears of disenfranchisement and even disorder in West Bengal. The situation following introduction of SIR exercise has turned scary and volatile. Hundred of voters and even the BLOs have committed suicide or suffered heart attack. But the CEC was adamant on keeping lakhs of voters out through the EC’s discrepancy list. Nobody objects deletion of dead or ghost voters, but deletion on account of spelling mistakes and the onus on the voters to prove their identity , are giving too much mental trouble to the genuine voters.

One aspect of the design to be seriously noted and perceived is, though the SIR was undertaken to weed out Ghuspaithiya, Rohingya and balance the demography structure, but so far none of these three elements were found under the SIR exercise. These unmapped voters also belied the BJP’s allegations that the names of over one crore “Bangladeshis, Rohingyas” were on West Bengal’s voter lists. In its desperation to delete as much names as it can, Commission even started summoning Muslim voters under “logical discrepancies” who had already established their connection to the 2002 voter list.

Muslims make up nearly 27 per cent of West Bengal’s population and the top leadership of BJP has a political strategy of keeping out as many minorities as possible from the final voters list in West Bengal since the Muslims are not expected to vote for BJP.. In oblique manner apex court cautioned ECI not to attempt to undermine the integrity of judicial officers who are deployed to deal with claims and objections of those facing deletion from voter lists in the SIR process. Following the order, Mamata temporarily suspended her dharna in Kolkata protesting the “flawed SIR” with the quip; “The Supreme Court’s decision has opened the door for justice and brought a new ray of hope for the people whose names were deleted
or under adjudication due to a logical discrepancy under SIR”.